Improving Transnational Transport Corridors
In the OIC Member Countries: Concepts and Cases
179
Table 67: Criteria Weighting
Step 2: Assigning corridor performance score
The second step in the MCA process is to assign scores (in a range of 1 – 10) to each of the six
case study corridors for its performance in each criterion, as shown in This step is
done by Fimotions who has researched the corridors.
Table 68: Corridor performance score
Step 3: Weighted score
The last step is multiplying the average weight by the corridor performance score of
each criterion . The result is shown in TRACECA performs the best among
the case study corridors, followed by CAREC. Both corridors score the highest on the political
and institutional factors. Their mature and well established secretariats clearly play an
important role. The ADB must have also contributed to the success of these corridors in this
area. In its role not only as the CAREC Secretariat but also a financial institution, the ADB takes
an important lead in monitoring the commitments of the member countries. This situation can
also be seen in the fact that, compared to the other transport corridors, the TRACECA and
CAREC countries are more keen in incorporating the corridor features in their transport
strategies and plans (see n . TAH1 and Mashreq score the lowest in this criterion
simply due to the absence of a proper corridor secretariat.
African transport corridors have developed mostly in Eastern and Southern Africa, the reasons
are mostly due to the high proportion of land locked countries seeking efficient trade routes to
the port and also the history of colonization that tended to build roads and railways from the
interior to ports. This is certainly the case with NTTC, which for 75 years until 1976 was a part
of the colonial East African Community.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Political and Institutional Factors 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.9
Economic Factors 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 1.6
Trade Facilitation 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.4
Social Factors 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.8
Safety, Security & Legal Liability 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.5 1.3
Technical and Operational Factors 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.5 2.2
Environmental and Energy Factors 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.8
Weighting must add to exactly 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Average
Score
Criteria
Corridor Experts
Criteria TRACECA CAREC NTTC TAH1 INSTC Mashreq
Political and Institutional Factors 8.0 6.0 6.5 2.5 6.0 2.0
Economic Factors 5.0 6.5 3.0 1.5 5.0 2.0
Trade Facilitation 6.0 7.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0
Social Factors 5.0 6.0 2.5 1.5 2.0 3.5
Safety, Security & Legal Liability 4.0 8.0 2.5 1.0 8.0 2.5
Technical and Operational Factors 7.0 7.5 2.0 2.5 6.0 6.0
Environmental and Energy Factors 3.0 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0